1. A central difference between the "social-efficiency" progressives and such "developmental-democracy" progressives as John Dewey was the way in which they conceived the notion of progressive education. Discuss that difference, and evaluate the degree to which one or the other concept, in your view, was a better response to the needs of American society in the decades following the turn of the century.
Social-efficiency progressives believed the society should define the children; developmental-democracy progressives believed the children should define society. Granted, there was enormous pressure at this point in history to staff the factories and develop America's industrial economy, but I have to agree with the text that the social-efficiency philosophy was a wholesale betrayal of the foundational ideals of the nation.
It seems the very notion of "responding to the needs of society" may be flawed, for it places us decidedly on the defensive: reacting to rather than defining the situation. Education should be rugged, stalwart, and vigorous, standing firm in the cause of knowledge and liberty, instead of catering to the selfish whims of a materialistic society.
2. It seems that both the developmental-democracy and the social-efficiency approaches to progressive education abandoned the classical curriculum of the 19th century, in which the same academic subjects had been taught to all students, regardless of their economic or ethnic backgrounds. What argument might be made in favor of keeping that traditional approach, and how would you evaluate that argument. Take into account the major social changes occurring at the turn of the century.
In many ways, what fueled the vigorous ingenuity, integrity, and courage of early America was not 19th century curriculum, but no curriculum. But what is in question here is not the content, but rather the commonality.
I suppose the answer depends on where the subject differentiation originates. If it comes from the natural diversity of interests and aptitudes among students, it seems natural - even healthy. If, on the other hand, the differentiation is imposed from the top, by "experts," the stakes are just too high and the potential for mismanagement and abuse too great.
Clearly, it was more "efficient" for the needs of an industrially-dominated society to categorize students by social class and aptitude. However, this approach obstructs the enormous potential of human intelligence and originality, and transforms society into a rigged, mechanistic system.
3. In what respects did various strands of the "new psychology" emerging in the progressive era provide support for innovations in schooling, including differential curricula and extracurricular activities? Do you think these innovations were adequately justified by these new interpretations in psychology? Defend your position.
The value of "learning by doing" is accurate educational psychology. It does not follow that this "doing" must take place at an institution. As the progressives worked to develop their new objectives, the institution was already being taken for granted. Because of this, discoveries that should have reduced the influence of the institution served rather to expand it into new territory.
The period produced largely legitimate discoveries but failed to apply them correctly.
4. Charles Eliot and other social-efficiency liberals believed that they were serving the interests of democracy with their vision of progressive education. Explain their point of view according to their conception of democracy. Next, evaluate their educational and political points of view by using your definition of the education requirements of democracy.
Eliot and the social liberals were constructing a docile, domesticated democracy. In doing so, they crossed the subtle line between a truly natural aristocracy and a "stacked" aristocracy. Power corrupts, and there is always a strong temptation to weight the dice.
The whole business about "protecting" and "safeguarding" democratic stability is rubbish. It is the nature of democracy to be dangerous and volatile - it is the lion that escaped the zoo. Ever since 1776, the American people have been quietly exchanging their liberty for security. One day we will discover that it was a bad trade.
5. This chapter appears to be heavily biased against vocational education in favor of a more "academic" education for all young people. What justification does the chapter provide for its criticism of vocational education, and do you think this justification is adequate, given the historical circumstances of the progressive era? Defend your position.
Vocational education is necessary - this is incontestable. The question is where and how it occurs. Traditionally, vocational training took place in the home, or under some sort of apprenticeship arrangement. Brave, creative types such as Ben Franklin or Robert Fulton figured stuff out on their own. But it couldn't last.
Incrementally, teaching came to be regarded as a specialized skill best left to professionals. This artificial monopoly on the art created an environment that continually misapplied breakthroughs in educational psychology, because it was operating in a counterfeit context. So when the obvious need for vocational training came along, the institution immediately assumed responsibility instead of stepping aside and making space for the training to occur more effectively somewhere else.
The learning environment must be consistent with the subject at hand; i.e., woodcraft in the woodshop, law in the courtroom, French in France. Vocational teaching requires a vocational environment - not an institutional or recreational one.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Sunday, February 11, 2007
School & Society: Ch. 3 Study Questions
1. It might be argued that Horace Mann's thinking about schooling and society is perfectly consistent with Jefferson's view, but that the differing political-economic contexts of late 18th-century Virginia and early 19th-century Massachusetts required different applications of Jeffersonian ideals. Assess that point of view, providing support from the text.
Jefferson's realm was broader in every sense. Education was but one spoke of his intellect. Mann, however, was more or less a devoted student of the subject. Thus they differed in their perspective and analysis, not only due to their separation in time and geography, but also their approach to the subject.
The text observes that Mann was not entirely original, and that his ideas, in the main, merely reflected the common sentiment of his time. The noble poise of Jefferson was receding from the public memory, and the society was already being slowly drawn, by tantalizing mirages, into federalism. The Government, as an institution, was beginning to be regarded as the champion of the public good. Some of this is healthy. The error arises when "champion" begins to mean "creator" rather than merely "protector."
The main difference between Mann and Jefferson was along this line: not education per se, but rather the province and promises of Government. It seems evident that Jefferson has a better grasp on the matter; Mann, riding the wave of federalism, brought the Government into his pet project, which happened to be education. What he did may have been the best that could have been done under the circumstances, given the temperament of the people; that may never be known.
I would have liked to see the society build more patiently on Jefferson's model, following the Brownsonian design for locally structured schooling. It seems this would have brought us more diversity, more passion, and would have been less a system and more a soul.
2. Were Orestes Brownson's ideas more consistent with Jefferson's view on the relations between education and republican forms of government than Horace Mann's? Defend your position.
Brownson united an expanding societal grasp on the psychology of education with the high ideals of the Jeffersonian Republic. He argued for localism, responsibility, and education for morals - not money. In contrast to Mann's blatant departure from Jefferson's Governmental ideals, Brownson maintained a grassroots view of the matter.
As the text notes: Part of Brownson's critique is grounded in a view of the educated person similar to Aristotle's notion of 'the cultivation of human excellence for its own sake,' an ideal that Brownson believes Mann is abandoning in favor of education for instrumental social ends." Brownson: "We think more of education as a means of fitting us for a livelihood than for anything else. The tendency has long been to sink the man in what are merely his accidents, to qualify him for a profession or pursuit, rather than to be a man..."
All three (Jefferson, Mann, and Brownson) were heavily influenced by Enlightenment thought - indeed, the world was. Mann took his enthusiasm in an socio-economic direction, while Jefferson and Brownson took a harder line and kept the bar high, not denying socio-economics, but making it a by-product of the educational process rather than a goal.
3. Given the then-current view that religious instruction was an essential part of the formation of character, how satisfactory was Mann's common-school solution to the religious diversity of urban Massachusetts? Defend your view.
Mann's attempt was undoubtedly heroic. I am inclined, however, to agree with Brownson: "The board [assures] us Christianity shall be insisted on so far, and only so far, as it is common to all sects. This if it means anything, means nothing at all. All who attempt to proceed on teh principle here laid down will find their Christianity ending in nothingness. Much may be taught in general, but nothing in particular. No sect will be satisfied; all sects will be dissatisfied. For it is not enough that my children are not educated in a belief contrary to my own; I would have them educated to believe what I hold to be important truth; and I always hold that to be important truth, wherein I differ from others..."
Each man's individual perception of Mann's measures may have differed. Clearly, it was not sufficient for Brownson. It is frankly astonishing to me that public education got on at all, considering the fervent religious convictions of the time. In our day, people believe less, think less, and, generally, care less; so a more or less secular educational institution makes more sense.
From the Christian perspective, this a foundational part of the rationale for parent-education.
4. On the one hand, Mann's promotion of women into the teaching force might be regarded as a positive advance for women into the public sphere. On the other, it might be argued that Mann was reinforcing the subservience of women by limiting them to public-sphere nurturing roles in public institutions controlled by governing boards comprised entirely of men. In your view, was the feminization of teaching a positive advance for women, or more negative in its import?
That Mann was "reinforcing the subservience of women by limiting them to public-sphere nurturing roles in public institutions controlled by governing boards comprised entirely of men" would have never entered in the minds of the populace. Such an estimation is only available to us in hindsight: it seems any significant insertion of women into the public would have been viewed unequivocally as "a positive advance for women into the public sphere."
The nurturing propensity of women seems a reasonable observation, in and of itself. Unfortunately for Mann, the feminization of teaching does not follow.
On the whole, in my view, the feminization of teaching was good for feminism and bad for women. Woman are designed with plentiful and particular gifts, but they are not designed to employ these gifts in the public sphere. Granted, the current state of the American educational system and workforce does little to substantiate this claim. It takes time for the milk to sour.
5. To what degree do you believe that the current status of the teaching profession is traceable to such common-school origins as the feminization of teaching, the social role of schooling, and the development of normal schools? Defend your view.
These were all factors that shaped and lent decisive direction to the teaching profession. On the one hand, I don't see them particularly more influential than many other ideas before or since. On the other, they came along at a formative time in the society's development, and found an open, pliable audience. Which makes them, in a way, the only discernible end to the traceable trail.
6. If Mann's common-school successes came at the expense of such democratic ideals as local self-governance and cultural pluralism, to what degree were these compromises justified in your view? Defend your position.
Mann's "successes" were subjective at best. He relied heavily on the inertia of the post-revolution Republic; critically speaking, he may have even slowed it down. The delayed repercussions of his actions have been disastrous.
The country has continued to make these compromises, in bulk. In my view, they are deadly; despite their sugary coating. They are dead-ends that masquerade as shortcuts. They deny the high ideals of liberty and responsibility, and should be roundly repudiated by the truly free and forward society.
Inoculating young minds with standardized, sterilized thinking drags the mat right out from under one's pious democratic ideal. Consider: if independent, industrious minds conceived of and created the Republic, it ought to go without saying that independent, industrious minds are capable of maintaining it. Perhaps, with a bit of luck, they might even improve upon it.
Fear is the enemy of freedom.
Jefferson's realm was broader in every sense. Education was but one spoke of his intellect. Mann, however, was more or less a devoted student of the subject. Thus they differed in their perspective and analysis, not only due to their separation in time and geography, but also their approach to the subject.
The text observes that Mann was not entirely original, and that his ideas, in the main, merely reflected the common sentiment of his time. The noble poise of Jefferson was receding from the public memory, and the society was already being slowly drawn, by tantalizing mirages, into federalism. The Government, as an institution, was beginning to be regarded as the champion of the public good. Some of this is healthy. The error arises when "champion" begins to mean "creator" rather than merely "protector."
The main difference between Mann and Jefferson was along this line: not education per se, but rather the province and promises of Government. It seems evident that Jefferson has a better grasp on the matter; Mann, riding the wave of federalism, brought the Government into his pet project, which happened to be education. What he did may have been the best that could have been done under the circumstances, given the temperament of the people; that may never be known.
I would have liked to see the society build more patiently on Jefferson's model, following the Brownsonian design for locally structured schooling. It seems this would have brought us more diversity, more passion, and would have been less a system and more a soul.
2. Were Orestes Brownson's ideas more consistent with Jefferson's view on the relations between education and republican forms of government than Horace Mann's? Defend your position.
Brownson united an expanding societal grasp on the psychology of education with the high ideals of the Jeffersonian Republic. He argued for localism, responsibility, and education for morals - not money. In contrast to Mann's blatant departure from Jefferson's Governmental ideals, Brownson maintained a grassroots view of the matter.
As the text notes: Part of Brownson's critique is grounded in a view of the educated person similar to Aristotle's notion of 'the cultivation of human excellence for its own sake,' an ideal that Brownson believes Mann is abandoning in favor of education for instrumental social ends." Brownson: "We think more of education as a means of fitting us for a livelihood than for anything else. The tendency has long been to sink the man in what are merely his accidents, to qualify him for a profession or pursuit, rather than to be a man..."
All three (Jefferson, Mann, and Brownson) were heavily influenced by Enlightenment thought - indeed, the world was. Mann took his enthusiasm in an socio-economic direction, while Jefferson and Brownson took a harder line and kept the bar high, not denying socio-economics, but making it a by-product of the educational process rather than a goal.
3. Given the then-current view that religious instruction was an essential part of the formation of character, how satisfactory was Mann's common-school solution to the religious diversity of urban Massachusetts? Defend your view.
Mann's attempt was undoubtedly heroic. I am inclined, however, to agree with Brownson: "The board [assures] us Christianity shall be insisted on so far, and only so far, as it is common to all sects. This if it means anything, means nothing at all. All who attempt to proceed on teh principle here laid down will find their Christianity ending in nothingness. Much may be taught in general, but nothing in particular. No sect will be satisfied; all sects will be dissatisfied. For it is not enough that my children are not educated in a belief contrary to my own; I would have them educated to believe what I hold to be important truth; and I always hold that to be important truth, wherein I differ from others..."
Each man's individual perception of Mann's measures may have differed. Clearly, it was not sufficient for Brownson. It is frankly astonishing to me that public education got on at all, considering the fervent religious convictions of the time. In our day, people believe less, think less, and, generally, care less; so a more or less secular educational institution makes more sense.
From the Christian perspective, this a foundational part of the rationale for parent-education.
4. On the one hand, Mann's promotion of women into the teaching force might be regarded as a positive advance for women into the public sphere. On the other, it might be argued that Mann was reinforcing the subservience of women by limiting them to public-sphere nurturing roles in public institutions controlled by governing boards comprised entirely of men. In your view, was the feminization of teaching a positive advance for women, or more negative in its import?
That Mann was "reinforcing the subservience of women by limiting them to public-sphere nurturing roles in public institutions controlled by governing boards comprised entirely of men" would have never entered in the minds of the populace. Such an estimation is only available to us in hindsight: it seems any significant insertion of women into the public would have been viewed unequivocally as "a positive advance for women into the public sphere."
The nurturing propensity of women seems a reasonable observation, in and of itself. Unfortunately for Mann, the feminization of teaching does not follow.
On the whole, in my view, the feminization of teaching was good for feminism and bad for women. Woman are designed with plentiful and particular gifts, but they are not designed to employ these gifts in the public sphere. Granted, the current state of the American educational system and workforce does little to substantiate this claim. It takes time for the milk to sour.
5. To what degree do you believe that the current status of the teaching profession is traceable to such common-school origins as the feminization of teaching, the social role of schooling, and the development of normal schools? Defend your view.
These were all factors that shaped and lent decisive direction to the teaching profession. On the one hand, I don't see them particularly more influential than many other ideas before or since. On the other, they came along at a formative time in the society's development, and found an open, pliable audience. Which makes them, in a way, the only discernible end to the traceable trail.
6. If Mann's common-school successes came at the expense of such democratic ideals as local self-governance and cultural pluralism, to what degree were these compromises justified in your view? Defend your position.
Mann's "successes" were subjective at best. He relied heavily on the inertia of the post-revolution Republic; critically speaking, he may have even slowed it down. The delayed repercussions of his actions have been disastrous.
The country has continued to make these compromises, in bulk. In my view, they are deadly; despite their sugary coating. They are dead-ends that masquerade as shortcuts. They deny the high ideals of liberty and responsibility, and should be roundly repudiated by the truly free and forward society.
Inoculating young minds with standardized, sterilized thinking drags the mat right out from under one's pious democratic ideal. Consider: if independent, industrious minds conceived of and created the Republic, it ought to go without saying that independent, industrious minds are capable of maintaining it. Perhaps, with a bit of luck, they might even improve upon it.
Fear is the enemy of freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
